Latest news with #Pakistan-backed
India Today
an hour ago
- Politics
- India Today
26/11 warranted a response, times have changed now: S Jaishankar on Op Sindoor
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Friday said that those who "sponsor, nurture and utilise terrorism for their ends" must pay a high price, and the same should have been given after the 26/11 Mumbai 2008 attacks. Speaking at the convocation of a private university in Gujarat's Vadodara, he reiterated Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'new India' vision, saying that times have changed and the country's resolve is "much stronger now".advertisement"The barbarity of the killings required an exemplary response, which was delivered... It is imperative that those who sponsor, nurture, and utilise terrorism for their ends are made to pay a high cost. That it warranted a forceful response, even after the 26/11 attack in Mumbai in 2008, is widely acknowledged. But times have changed, and our resolve is much stronger now. Terrorism epicentres are no longer immune. India's zero tolerance for terrorism has been manifested today through its actions," Jaishankar said, referencing Operation Sindoor, which was in retaliation to the Pahalgam massacre, in which Pakistan-backed terrorists killed 26 Minister also said that India will never cave in to nuclear blackmail and terrorism epicentres are no longer immune. "We will never give in to nuclear blackmail. Whatever decisions have to be taken in India's national interests are taken and will continue to be taken," the minister said while speaking at the convocation ceremony of a private university in Vadodara, Gujarat. advertisementPakistani ministers and officials had been launching nuclear threats even before Operation Sindoor was conducted by India, as the situation between the two countries remained volatile following the Pahalgam massacre, in which Pakistan-backed terrorists killed 26 also spoke about the "transactional" policies of some nations while noting the difference between diplomacy practised by India and others."In the international community of almost 200 nations, we do have national interests, and naturally seek to advance them, but this ought to be done with mutual understanding and mutual benefit as guiding principles. It has become a fashion in some quarters to be openly transactional when it comes to dealing with other nations. Bear in mind that some are actually practising it in reality while preaching the opposite," he said, appearing to be taking a dig at Turkey, which has openly supported Pakistan and also supplied drones to the however, also highlighted that it has been "heartening" to see the understanding from several countries on India's "right to defend ourselves against terrorism"."In some societies, sentiments and values count a lot and India belongs to that category," he said, adding that India has kept in mind its larger obligation to the international community. "Our resources may be limited, but India has a large heart."advertisementJaishankar echoed PM Modi, who in his first address to the nation after Operation Sindoor, affirmed that India won't endure any nuke blackmail."Any nuclear blackmail won't be tolerated by India. Terror infra operating under nuclear blackmail will be targeted by India," the Prime Minister had InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Subrahmanyam Jaishankar#Operation Sindoor
India.com
7 hours ago
- Politics
- India.com
EAM Jaishankar Holds Bilateral Talks With Cyprus Counterpart, Lauds Anti-Terrorism Cooperation
New Delhi: External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar held talks with Cyprus' Foreign Affairs Minister, Constantinos Kombos, to strengthen bilateral ties between the two nations. He also thanked Cyprus for its support in India's fight against terrorism. This meeting coincides with India's ongoing diplomatic outreach campaign as part of Operation Sindoor, where Indian MPs are visiting various countries to highlight India's efforts to combat Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism. Taking to X, the External Affairs Minister wrote: "Warm conversation with FM @ckombos of Cyprus. Discussed strengthening our bilateral partnership as well as India-EU ties. Appreciate the support consistently extended by Cyprus in combating terrorism." Since the establishment of diplomatic ties between India and Cyprus in 1962, bilateral relations between both nations have been traditionally very close and friendly. Besides, Cyprus has supported India on several crucial issues, including India's election to the UNSC, the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, the NSG and the IAEA, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) notes. Cyprus also supported India's post-Shakti series of nuclear tests, and on the issues of the Pulwama terrorist attack, says the MEA. There have been several goodwill gestures between India and Cyprus, marking their special regard and gratitude for each other. The MEA notes India has named an avenue in Delhi in honour of Archbishop Makarios, the first President of Cyprus. "Cyprus issued two postal stamps on the occasion of the Centenary Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi in 1970," it says. Apart from that, a bust of the 'Father of the Nation', Mahatma Gandhi, was installed in the garden of the Parliament of Cyprus in 1972, and the avenue in front of the bust was named 'Jawaharlal Nehru Avenue' in 1983. In a heartwarming gesture underlining the close relations between the two nations, in 2019, Cyprus issued a commemorative stamp on the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary. Taking into consideration the close ties between India and Cyprus, the latest conversation between S. Jaishankar and Constantinos Kombos holds importance, as the subject of terrorism was also touched upon during the talks, with the Indian minister acknowledging the West Asian nation's constant support in combating terrorism. (With Inputs from IANS)
News18
14 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Operation Sindoor Outreach: Supriya Sule's Team In South Africa Spells Out India's Anti-Terror Stance
Last Updated: India conveyed that Operation Sindoor targeted only terror hubs in Pakistan, and stressed that it has never shown aggression against another nation During its visit to South Africa, the delegation led by Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar (NCP-SP) lawmaker Supriya Sule emphasised that Operation Sindoor was India's response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. India conveyed a clear message that its strikes targeted only the terror hubs in Pakistan, and stressed that it has never shown aggression against another nation. This response came after Pakistan-backed terrorists brutally killed 26 people, mostly Indian civilians, in cold blood on April 22 in Pahalgam. The delegation aimed to expose Pakistan's terror activities and assert that any attack on India would be met with equal force. 'We were asked multiple questions about India's response, and we wanted to tell the people in South Africa that this is the new normal in our country. If anyone tries to bleed us, we will hit back in equal measure," a source told CNN-News18. 'This is a big exercise to sensitise the world and inform them that this will be India's policy moving forward, so they should not be surprised if India retaliates to protect its people." The delegation, led by Sule, met Anna Moraka and Alvin Botes, deputy ministers of international relations and cooperation of South Africa. They also engaged with local politicians, think tanks, social media influencers, and the diaspora. Supriya Sule said during her visit, 'We have come to South Africa to inform its people about what happened in India five weeks ago. There was a brutal attack on India's soul; 26 innocent people on vacation were shot. It's a very unfortunate incident. India has always sought peace, harmony, and growth in the neighbourhood. This attack shocked us all. India has always led globally for peace, and the deep friendship we have with South Africa, the country of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela—two global icons of non-violence—makes us feel very close to South Africa." India and South Africa share many common interests, including a commitment to non-violence. Both countries also had military cooperation in the late noughties and a shared love for cricket. MP Manish Tewari, during his visit, said, 'The parliamentary delegation visited Constitutional Hill, which used to be a jail where Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were imprisoned for years and tortured after their arrest. We came here to pay tribute to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The scenes at the jail and the descriptions given to us demonstrated that independence was attained with great difficulty and after torture to several generations. This is a living example that during apartheid in South Africa, people of Indian and African origin were treated barbarically, like animals." Apart from Supriya Sule, the delegation includes former union ministers Anand Sharma, Manish Tewari, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Anurag Thakur, and V Muraleedharan. TDP's Lok Sabha MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu and former permanent representative of India to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, are also part of the delegation. After visiting South Africa, the delegation will proceed to Ethiopia, with Egypt being its final destination before returning home early next week. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: May 31, 2025, 00:13 IST
India Today
19 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
How real is the India-Pakistan nuclear war threat?
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 2, 2025)No battle plan ever survives the first bullet fired in a war. That old military adage held true for the sixth war between India and Pakistan, which ended abruptly in a ceasefire on May 10, four days after it had begun. India planned to deliver a strong punitive deterrent to Pakistan's aiding and abetting terror strikes on our soil, including the attack in Pahalgam this April. It achieved that goal in its very first strike, in the early hours of May 7, when its armed forces launched precision attacks across the international border and the Line of Control, targeting the headquarters and training camps of key Pakistan-backed terror groups. Having deliberately avoided hitting military installations, India informed Pakistan that it had no interest in escalating hostilities further and only if Islamabad retaliated would it though, was in no mood to take India's blows lying down. Over the next three days, fighting intensified, with both sides chiefly deploying their air assets, including high-speed missiles as well as loitering, kamikaze drones to target each other's air bases and military installations. India claimed its superior firepower helped it get the upper hand in these exchanges, forcing Pakistan to call a truce. What it did not anticipate, though, was US president Donald Trump stealing its thunder and claiming victory for stopping the war. In a post on his social media account, Trump declared it was the US that helped mediate a ceasefire, announcing it even before the combatants could do so themselves. Two days later, at a White House briefing, Trump embarrassed India further, claiming, 'We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have been killed.'advertisementTrump stuck to that line even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address to the nation on May 12, asserted that Operation Sindoor had proved that 'India would not be deterred by nuclear blackmail' and foreign secretary Vikram Misri denied any 'nuclear signalling' during the war. In an interview to Fox News on May 16, Trump said, 'These are major nuclear playersand they were angry. And the next phase was probably—did you see where it was getting? It was tit for tat. It was getting deeper and more missiles, that got stronger and stronger. To a point where the next one's going to be, you know what? The N word. The N word used in a nuclear sense—that's the worst thing that can happen. And I think they were very close. The hatred was great.' With all three nations involved—India, Pakistan and the US—presenting differing versions of what really happened in the final hours of the war, one question still hangs in the air: how real was and is the threat of a nuclear war? (Graphic by Tanmoy Chakraborty) THE NUCLEAR EQUATIONNot for nothing did Bill Clinton, as US president, describe the subcontinent as the most dangerous place in the world. Both India and Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests in the summer of 1998, when Clinton was in office, overtly demonstrating their recessed prowess. By then, they already had over 50 nuclear weapons each, a number that has trebled since. Both have perfected accurate supersonic ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, with India relying on the Agni series and Pakistan on the Ghauri and its variants. Apart from air force jets, India has completed the triad of delivery systems for nuclear weapons by equipping two of its nuclear submarines with a sea variant of the strategic terms of doctrine, India believes in no-first use of its nuclear weapons. But if Pakistan does use a nuclear missile against it, it will retaliate massively and destroy all its major cities. Pakistan, on the other hand, believes in using its nukes first if its territorial integrity or economy is under threat; it will apply the full spectrum of nuclear weapons in its possession in that eventuality. If either launches a nuclear weapon like the 15-kiloton bomb in Hiroshima on Mumbai or Karachi, the death toll, experts say, could exceed a million, while large parts of these cities will be rendered unfit for human habitation for decades because of the impact of the Tellis, author of several seminal books on South Asia's nuclear conundrum, believes Pakistan has overtaken India and possesses the largest and most diversified nuclear arsenal in the region. This is because, he says, 'Pakistan is increasingly driven less by what India is actually doing and more by its fervid imaginings of India's capabilities coupled with an expansive—and expanding—notion of what its nuclear requirements entail.' In the past decade, Pakistan has added tactical nuclear weapons and missiles suited for battlefield scenarios to thwart an unexpected land invasion by India. It has thus introduced a hair-trigger complexity, as the command and control of tactical weapons have to be decentralised to the brigade level for effective use during crisis, leaving the so-called nuclear button in the hands of relative to expectations that the possession of such dangerous weapons would reduce the risk of a confrontation for fear of mutually assured destruction, the two nations have found themselves on the brink of a nuclear conflagration on three major occasions. The first was in 1999, a year after their respective nuclear tests, when the two countries fought a bitter border war in the icy heights of Kargil under the shadow of a nuclear umbrella. When both sides brandished their nukes, Clinton was forced to step in and tell Pakistan to withdraw its intrusion and restore status quo. The US had to intervene again after the 2001 terror attack on India's Parliament to prevent an all-out war between the two countries by forcing Pakistan to take strict action against third nuclear confrontation took place as recently as February 2019, following the Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 paramilitary personnel, prompting India to send fighter jets to strike terrorist camps in Balakot, deep within Pakistani territory. However, when an Indian pilot was captured in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir after his fighter jet was shot down and he bailed out, the crisis, according to then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, came close 'to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration'. Pakistan accused India of moving its nuclear-armed submarine close to its shores and gave orders to keep its nukes in readiness. It took Pompeo and then US national security advisor John Bolton much jaw-jawing with leaders of the two sides to defuse the situation, with the pilot set free and both India and Pakistan claiming victory. DANGEROUS BRINKMANSHIPDespite the sixth war between India and Pakistan lasting just four days compared to the two-month-long 1999 Kargil war, Lisa Curtis, director, Indo Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security, in Washington DC, believes it was the most serious Indo-Pak conflict since the 1971 Bangladesh war. Her reason: 'The scope and breadth of the territory involved in this war was vast compared to the limited border strikes in the 1999 Kargil war. I have been following India-Pakistan now for 30 years and the sight of two nuclear-armed states barraging each other with missiles and drone strikes over a four-day period, striking military installations deep inside each other's territory, was both shocking and alarming.'From US vice-president J.D. Vance telling Fox News on May 8 that this conflict was none of America's business to calling up PM Modi 12 hours later, asking India to de-escalate, is how rapidly the situation had escalated. According to American media reports, Vance had conveyed to Modi on May 9 that, as per US assessment, there was a high probability of Pakistan dramatically escalating violence, and pressed the Indian premier for a potential off-ramp to stop hostilities that would also be acceptable to the Pakistanis. But while the reports said Modi was non-committal, sources in India's external affairs ministry reveal that the Indian prime minister told Vance, 'If the Pakistanis do anything, please be assured that they will get a response more forceful, stronger and more devastating than anything they did. Pakistan needs to understand this.'Modi's warning went unheeded by Pakistan. That evening, around 8.30, its armed forces launched Operation Bunyan Marsoos (literally, a wall of lead, but a phrase that symbolises unity, strength and discipline), unleashing a wave of retaliatory strikes using drones, heavy artillery and missiles on 26 sensitive Indian locations, including air bases and military installations. It even launched a Fatah-II missile, a supersonic guided artillery rocket system with 400-km range, to strike the Delhi airport, but India's missile defence system intercepted it near Sirsa. India claims to have neutralised most incoming Pakistani munitions with minimal struck back ferociously in the early hours of May 10 around 1.10 am, using among other missiles the BrahMos, its hypersonic cruise missile. It targeted eight air bases, including the one at Nur Khan in Chaklala between Rawalpindi, the general headquarters of the Pakistan army, and capital Islamabad. India's armed forces released photographs, showing the damage to vital infrastructure there. The Nur Khan base is also close to Pakistan's nuclear command and control headquarters. Pakistan prime minister Shehbaz Sharif later revealed that army chief General Asim Munir had called him up at 2.30 am and informed him of the attack on the air bases, including the one close to the capital. Meanwhile, sources disclose that the Indian navy, too, had by then positioned its strike fleet close to Karachi and had been alerted that orders to begin a blockade of Pakistan's ports were imminent. THE TIPPING POINTExperts in the know say that on May 10 between 2.30 am and 10.30 am—for eight hours, that is—the fate of the subcontinent hung in the balance. Brig. Feroz Hassan Khan (retd), a research professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, who had earlier served in Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, says, 'The fact that Nur Khan was hit [near] the capital city would create more political pressure. Both India and Pakistan had climbed the rungs of the military escalation ladder so fast, it was evident that in the next 24-48 hours, the tipping point would have been reached for an all-out war.' That India had hit at strategic air bases such as Nur Khan, and Mushaf at Sargodha, meant that red lines were about to be crossed. 'Had India inadvertently hit a nuclear storage site, Pakistan would have considered it as a first strike and retaliated with nuclear weapons. If the ceasefire had not been called on May 10, the next night would have been a terrible one,' says is among those who do not think the crisis was near nuclear boiling point. He believes the Indian air strikes of May 10 were extremely modest because, he says, 'The fear of nuclear escalation is always baked into such conflicts. Destroying infrastructure is not something you can do in a single spasm of violence, it needs protracted targeting. In Nur Khan, India didn't set out to decapitate the nuclear command system. What they did was more of a psychological campaign of uncertainty, intimidation and fear, which is the real payoff rather than physically destroying large portions of infrastructure.' Unless there is clear evidence of Pakistan moving to elevate its nuclear weapons readiness levels, Tellis finds it hard to believe the current crisis would have careened towards a nuclear sources, too, maintain the crisis never acquired nuclear dimensions, and that Pakistan climbed down after the air strikes on its bases as it realised that another two days of war would have forced it into humiliating submission. They say it was Gen. Munir who got in touch with Rubio early that morning and requested him to get India to stand down. Soon after, Rubio called external affairs minister S. Jaishankar, who told him that if Pakistan wanted to cease hostilities, it needed to communicate it via the hotline between their respective director generals of military operations. Maj. Gen. Kashif Abdullah, Pakistan's DGMO, then called his Indian counterpart, Lt Gen. Rajiv Ghai, at 3.35 pm and told him that Pakistan wanted a ceasefire. India agreed and it was mutually decided that it would come into force at 5 pm that day. India denies US intervention in bringing this explanation flies against Trump's assertion that he had averted a potential nuclear conflict. Rubio, too, had several rounds of discussions with the key players—Jaishankar, Gen. Munir, Shehbaz Sharif and India's national security advisor Ajit Doval. In a social media post, Rubio thanks these leaders and says that both countries had not only agreed to an immediate ceasefire but also 'to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site'. This seemed in consonance with state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce's read-out of Rubio's conversations with Munir and Jaishankar. The one with Munir read, 'He continued to urge both parties to find ways to de-escalate and offered US assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflicts.' The read-out with Jaishankar, on the other hand, went thus: 'Rubio emphasised that both sides need to identify methods to de-escalate and re-establish communication to avoid miscalculation. He further proposed US support in facilitating productive discussions to avert future disputes.' Posting his take on the conversation, Jaishankar's message on X read: 'Had a conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this morning. India's approach has always been measured and responsible and remains so.' THE ENDGAMEIn off-the-record briefings, however, the MEA says there was no such agreement to resume talks with Pakistan as it would run contrary to India's stated policy of no talks unless Pakistan turns off the terror tap. Christopher Clary, assistant professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and an expert on South Asian nuclear issues, believes the truce came about through a combination of factors, including the likelihood of US intelligence agencies observing a change in the readiness status of Pakistan's nuclear assets. 'My hypothesis,' says Clary, 'is that a combination of Indian military pressure combined with US inducements created a mix of carrots and sticks that made Pakistan indicate it could cease hostilities.' Curtis agrees that India and Pakistan would not have agreed to a ceasefire on their own and needed third-party intervention to step back from the nuclear though, saw Trump's observations and Rubio's comments as a significant victory. Not only did Trump, in a subsequent briefing, offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, the US also told India to hold talks on key issues. Pakistan claimed they were able to internationalise the Kashmir issue again and get re-hyphenated with India. Gen. Munir got himself promoted to Field Marshal to demonstrate his clout and cement his status as the de facto czar of sense of triumphalism in the Pakistan military worries Curtis. 'It makes it seem like this act of terrorism helped draw international attention to Kashmir and sends a wrong signal that could encourage more violence in the future,' she says. 'It doesn't help calm tensions in the region.' She believes the US must quietly work behind the scenes to encourage the two sides to get some kind of bilateral dialogue going, including on the issues of terrorism and nuclear risk admit the truce is tenuous, and another terrorist act could trigger a resumption of hostilities. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US and senior fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington DC, says, 'The jihadis may want to break the peace, but I think Pakistan will now put a leash on them as they don't want to go down this path again.' The real problem, Haqqani fears, is that the public in both countries is jingoistic and seemingly unaware of the grave dangers of a nuclear miscalculation. 'Our attitude seems to be that even if the plane we are travelling in is crashing, we are laughing and asking for more whisky,' he says. Hassan Khan believes India and Pakistan need to build an architecture that can sort out such things immediately before they get into 'a commitment trap' that pushes them towards a dangerous war. Tellis thinks the longer term challenge is now tied up with the future of India-Pakistan relations and cannot be resolved without actual engagement between the two countries. 'To my mind, the question is how do you punish the enemy by minimising the risks to yourself,' he says. Talking about nuclear war, a sci-fi movie from the Cold War era had this line: 'It is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.' It could be a tactic worth to India Today MagazineTune InMust Watch
United News of India
19 hours ago
- Business
- United News of India
If Pak dares again, we will enter its home and reply: Modi
Kanpur, May 30 (UNI) While praising the Indian Army's action against terrorist hideouts in Pakistan a few days ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday advised Pakistan to mend its ways and said that 'Operation Sindoor' is not over yet. Addressing a public meeting at the Chandrashekhar Azad Agricultural University campus after launching development projects worth more than Rs 47,573 crore, including the expansion of Kanpur Metro and power plants, the PM said, "Our army performed such a feat that the Pakistani army had to beg to stop the war. I salute the bravery of the Army again and again from this land. 'Operation Sindoor' is not over yet. if Pakistan-backed terrorists dare again, they will be given a befitting reply by entering their homes." He gave a stern warning to Pakistan and said, "Now the game of state and non-state elements will not work. Wherever the enemy is, he will be defeated. "Operation Sindoor' demonstrated the power of India's indigenous weapons and 'Make in India'. Weapons like the Brahmos missile destroyed targets by entering the enemy's home." Speaking on Aatmanirbhar Bharat, Modi said that UP, especially Kanpur, is playing an important role in the country's self-reliance in the defence sector. He said that seven factories, including the old Ordnance Factory in Kanpur, have been converted into modern companies. "Today, the country's biggest defense corridor is being built in UP, which once witnessed the exodus of traditional industries, now big companies of the defence sector are coming there" he said Discussing the development of Kanpur, he said that now, metro, infrastructure, and civic amenities have started appearing here like big cities. "Kanpur Metro is proof that if the government's intentions are clear and the intentions are strong, then development is possible," he said. Tight security arrangements were made during the PM's address, and thousands of people were present at the public meeting. The PM said the programme was proposed on April 24, but due to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, he had to cancel the visit. He paid tribute to Shubham Dwivedi of Kanpur, who was martyred in the attack, and described the pain of his daughter Aishnya Dwivedi as the shared grief of the country. He said, "The same anger of our sisters was seen by the whole world in the form of Operation Sindoor." UNI XC AB SSP
